Tambe Electric Inc. entered into a written agreement with Home Depot to provide copper wire to Tambe at a price set forth in the writing, and allowing the contractor the option of paying for the wire over a period of time. Home Depot did not fulfill this written agreement and Tambe sued for $68,598, the additional cost it had to subsequently pay to obtain copper wire for its work. Home Depot defended that it had made an oral condition precedent requiring payment in full by Tambe at the time it accepted the price quoted in the written agreement. Decide.

Question

Business

Ben Ayers

5 June, 03:32

Tambe Electric Inc. entered into a written agreement with Home Depot to provide copper wire to Tambe at a price set forth in the writing, and allowing the contractor the option of paying for the wire over a period of time. Home Depot did not fulfill this written agreement and Tambe sued for $68,598, the additional cost it had to subsequently pay to obtain copper wire for its work. Home Depot defended that it had made an oral condition precedent requiring payment in full by Tambe at the time it accepted the price quoted in the written agreement. Decide.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Gidget · Answer 1

My opinion is

Appeals court affirmed the decision.

The parol evidence rule holds. The oral agreement conflicts with expressly written terms, hence the written terms hold. The seller is liable for breach.

Explanation:

Facts

1) Buyer and seller made a written contract for seller to sell buyer wiring equipment with payment to be made over time.

2) Seller failed to provide items as contract requested, also claimed prior oral agreement with buyer for payment to be in full.

3) Buyer sued. Trial court held for buyer. Seller appealed.

Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases

Parol evidence rule states that written contract can't be contradicted by oral agreements made prior to the contract as legal evidence. However, oral agreements that explain contract terms are allowed